HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Yoohoo, on Citizens Unite...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 10:21 PM

Yoohoo, on Citizens United....

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg knows an opportunity when she sees one.

Last Friday night at the close of business, she wrote a statement in which she was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer suggesting that the controversial Citizens United case should be revisited.

Citizens United held that the government cannot ban campaign spending by corporations in elections.

Ginsburg had voted against Citizens United in 2010, and in Friday’s statement she was signaling that a new case might give the court the opportunity to look at Citizens United again.

The statement did not come out of the blue.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/will-supreme-court-reconsider-citizens-united-two-justices-hope-so/

I wonder if the move to amend and the crazy no holds barred electoral season is having an effect?

10 replies, 1107 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Yoohoo, on Citizens United.... (Original post)
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 OP
elleng Feb 2012 #1
Warpy Feb 2012 #2
spanone Feb 2012 #3
Thinkingabout Feb 2012 #4
rhett o rick Feb 2012 #5
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #6
rhett o rick Feb 2012 #7
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #8
lonestarnot Feb 2012 #9
lonestarnot Feb 2012 #10

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 10:30 PM

1. Ruth's a keeper!

'The Supreme Court did step in at 6 p.m. on the eve of a three-day weekend to put a temporary hold on the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling. Ginsburg agreed with the decision. “Because lower courts are bound to follow this court’s decisions,” the stay was necessary, she said.

But then she went further.

Ginsburg and Breyer (another Citizens United dissenter) said in a statement attached to the court’s order: “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC makes it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’”

She quoted a key part of the Citizens United decision.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

2. The court wingnuts thought it would make Republican victory a sure thing

and didn't anticipate competing super PACs backing competing primary candidates and destroying the whole bunch.

Talk about the law of unintended consequences! That ruling has blown up right in their stupid, piggy faces.

You bet your ass they'll revisit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

3. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

4. Wonder what Scalia has to say now

The party to be hurt first is the, proof of what Obama indicated has come true. I don't know if there needs to be a bill
passed or not but to have it revisited by SC would restore confidence in SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:11 PM

5. This may not be the blessing we hope. The court may decide to weaken but not kill Citizens United.

Which may take some of the enthusiasm out of the move to amend.

But I say take a bird in the hand (not sure what that really means, sounds nasty to me) and go for the whole taco (or enchilada) later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:16 PM

6. It actually offers two tracks

the court needs an actual case... iirc correctly any Justice can chose to take a case, but you still need one.

And the move to amend is still moving.

At the risk of comparing to the pro-whatever it means this week folks... they have been working on two tracks too. And damn it, they have been way too effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:06 AM

7. I will be happy for any short term victory because a Constitutional Amendment is a huge

undertaking. I believe it takes 2/3 approval in each of the HOR and the Senate. Then 2/3 of the states legislatures must approve. That seems daunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 12:08 AM

8. It is, why the ERA failed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 01:04 AM

9. K & R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 01:05 AM

10. Now how did that happen?

A double post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread